> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Orton > Sent: Donnerstag, 8. September 2011 14:16 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1166551 - > /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:45:40AM -0000, Jean-Frederic Clere wrote: > > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c (original) > > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c Thu Sep > 8 07:45:40 2011 > > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static int ap_proxy_ajp_request(apr_pool > > "proxy: AJP: request failed to %pI (%s)", > > conn->worker->cp->addr, > > conn->worker->s->hostname); > > - if (status == AJP_EOVERFLOW) > > + if (status == AJP_EOVERFLOW || status == AJP_EBAD_METHOD) > > return HTTP_BAD_REQUEST; > > else { > > /* > > An unrecognized method from the client does not imply a syntactically > invalid request, so it does not look like 400 is an appropriate > response. > > 501 would be normal here - if I'm reading the proxy logic correctly, > only 500 and 503 have special semantics, so it should be fine to do > this? > > Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c > =================================================================== > --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c (revision 1166642) > +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c (working copy) > @@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ > "proxy: AJP: request failed to %pI (%s)", > conn->worker->cp->addr, > conn->worker->s->hostname); > - if (status == AJP_EOVERFLOW || status == AJP_EBAD_METHOD) > + if (status == AJP_EOVERFLOW) > return HTTP_BAD_REQUEST; > + else if (status == AJP_EBAD_METHOD) > + return HTTP_NOT_IMPLEMENTED; > else { > /* > * This is only non fatal when the method is > idempotent. In this >
+1 Regards Rüdiger
